[radext] AD review of draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 26 February 2015 00:11 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 819251A6F27 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:11:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bc-AQ4t1HFOr for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:11:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x231.google.com (mail-lb0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56D281A005D for <radext@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:11:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lbvp9 with SMTP id p9so7524758lbv.3 for <radext@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:11:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=7qMBW8wYfFSgYYe7s/FBk34fJbtGGBIoboeFF+t9ypU=; b=uyl4fltwSVmOuSxIriQSMo/64oGgqE2srk20UFWE2ynSXu9Yw1U4PEO65H8SSxM7ua mE+k5FOzC09dUZFXyHCZyWunXLSZZ/+VtNJhced5DOyx4YpTsVZMFonvPEdEpIfgTPps 9XWVjXU12V7k3fDEVxHCqdBhyZrRubAdpBjlBuxtXOWhSpMmy8lNKOAhSzJOfsMuVGKc u4k9QV1KsrLgD1iApXom3klFLRrbQLTwnmHymw/xfShb1UHrlVQGMjDpoMErhAfWqjgI OsiW7WlD5/zMB0r55jN8Y2vXXbC34kykuWHJhOjBHi/r5MLbQHCkG+skzIU6p9TEBGEf mpPA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.46.201 with SMTP id x9mr5109176lbm.65.1424909476624; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:11:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.167.101 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:11:16 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 19:11:16 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH7bH+g11etTb_P+ZJMQh=N+=zkpvg0EOm3bjmy9s0iyjw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
To: radext@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1134586a310015050ff29755"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/97IkGLu_bKGVaIAPQGjaigufE_8>
Subject: [radext] AD review of draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list <radext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/radext/>
List-Post: <mailto:radext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:11:20 -0000

Hello,

I reviewed draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery and found it to be very well
written, and covering security and privacy considerations nicely as well.
Thank you for that.

I just have a few nits and a question to see if some text can be further
clarified before progressing this to last call.  I'd like to start IETF
last call very soon if the WG is ok with that.

Nits & comments:

Please expand out names of DNS labels on first use (NAPTR, SRV, RR, etc.).
They are obvious to most of us, but are not in the list of acronyms that
don't have to be spelled out,
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt
(If there is a *, RFC editor is okay with not expanding)

Section 3.4.3
In the algorithm, I am confused by step 12 that simply says "Proceed with
step 18."  Are there conditions that would have you decide to skip steps
13-17 or is this meant to be interpreted as proceed with step 18, then go
back to step 13?  The example later shows that you skip 13-17, but why this
happens isn't clear to me.  Did I miss an explanation?

Section 3.4.4
First paragraph: The second sentence is super long and the last one is also
a bit too long, can something be done to make these sentences easier to
read?

Section 3.4.5
Second to last sentence, just a nit:
s/control/controls/

The algorithm therefore control execution time with
   TIMER.


Section 3.4.6
There are some formatting issues at the start of this section, you are
probably aware of already.

Thank you.
-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen